United States v. Cora Cadia Ford
784 F.3d 1386
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Cora Cadia Ford, owner of a tax-preparation business, ran a multi-year fraud scheme obtaining vulnerable persons’ personal information (often homeless or disabled) under false pretenses, filing false tax returns and keeping refunds.
- Seventeen witnesses testified at trial; eight corresponded to returns in the indictment and nine to similar uncharged returns. Many returns listed Ford or her businesses as the preparer and shared false addresses; refunds were deposited or cashed by Ford and victims received no funds.
- The government admitted Ford’s personal tax returns showing false addresses and false dependents, a redacted undercover TV videotape of Ford soliciting information from someone posing as homeless, IRS summary charts, and bank records.
- A jury convicted Ford on 10 counts each of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A), and filing a false claim (18 U.S.C. §287). The district court sentenced her to 111 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, restitution of $101,015, and assessments.
- On appeal Ford challenged out-of-court identifications, multiplicity (double jeopardy), admission of uncharged-offense evidence (Rules 403/404(b)), admissibility of summary charts, and sentencing enhancements (loss amount and victim count). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pretrial photo identifications | Procedures were proper and identifications reliable | Photo arrays were unduly suggestive and identifications unreliable | Identification procedures were not unduly suggestive; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Multiplicity (mail fraud vs. false claims) | Counts charge distinct offenses with different elements | Counts are multiplicitous and violate Double Jeopardy | Not multiplicitous: §1341 requires mail use; §287 requires presenting a false claim; both have distinct elements |
| Admission of uncharged-offense evidence (404(b)/403) | Evidence (personal returns, other victims, videotape) was intrinsic or admissible under 404(b) to show intent, identity, method, absence of mistake | Evidence was improper character/propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Evidence admissible: many items were intrinsic (same scheme/modus operandi) or met 404(b) and Rule 403 standard; videotape properly redacted |
| Summary charts and hearsay | Charts summarized admissible business records and were authenticated by IRS testimony | Charts contained hearsay and were irrelevant; objection preserved | No plain error: charts based on admitted bank records/tax returns and corroborated by IRS agent; any error did not affect substantial rights |
| Sentencing — loss amount and victim count | Government proved loss (> $400,000) and >250 victims by preponderance via IRS summaries and agent testimony | Insufficient evidence for loss estimate; only IRS was victim; Application Note 2 bars victim-count enhancement | District court’s loss estimate and victim-count findings upheld (reasonable estimate, preponderance); identity-theft guideline did not bar 2B1.1 victim enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (two-part test for out-of-court identifications)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for multiplicity/double jeopardy)
- United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) (multiplicity analysis)
- United States v. Muscatell, 42 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 1995) (uncharged-conduct intrinsic-evidence doctrine)
- United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2000) (caution on use of summary charts)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review)